Posted on 12/19/2009 3:57:53 PM PST by pj1070
Of course not. But that is true of everything about almost everything about the government. The rules the Senate has established for itself have nothing to do with pay or gyms they can use. They have to do with limiting debate and things like that. I doubt most of these rules would have shocked someone like Thomas Jefferson.
ML/NJ
Nope, but some of us have other things to do than post on FR.
I’ve wondered about the accuracy of Census Bureau and other official sources for statistics, most of which seem to come in around 10M to 12M for illegal aliens.
I’ve had some email discussion on the issue with Mark Krikorian, head of Center for Immigration Studies, perhaps the nation’s leading anti-immigration organization, so not exactly water-carriers for the open borders types.
According to him the Census Bureau numbers are likely to be accurate within 10% to 20% or so. He says auxiliary numbers with regard to school admissions, emergency room usage, etc. make it impossible for there to be 10M+ more illegal immigrants in the country than what the CB says.
I realize Mr. Walsh differs. I suggest you or Mr. Walsh get in touch with Mr. Krikorian if you wish to argue the point.
IOW, I have a source, you have a source. My sources are much better funded and organized. You believe my sources are part of a giant conspiracy to deceive the public. I believe your source is a typical conspiracy theory fruitcake.
More critically, I believe “immigration activists” have no incentive to hide the numbers of illegal aliens. In fact, their incentives run the other way. They’re all upset about the next census undercounting them, which will negatively impact funding for their jurisdictions, representation in Congress, etc. They even want to introduce statistical sampling and “adjustment” of the actual count in order to get the numbers up where they think they should be.
The Senators were initially chosen by the legislatures of their State. The governors never appointed them.
Senators were chosen by the legislature for a term of six years. The legislatures had no power to recall or remove them prior to that term.
BTW, do you have any reason to believe limiting the electorate for Senator to the state legislators would reduce corruption? Seems to me a few hundred people are a lot easier to corrupt than a few million.
I only work 60 hours per week so I have plenty of time to post on FR.
Perhaps Sherman Logan would prefer to read Bear Sterns study (The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface by Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA) published in January 2005:
“The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.
Undocumented immigrants are gaining a larger share of the job market, and hold approximately 12 to 15 million jobs in the United States (8% of the employed)
Four to six million jobs have shifted to the underground market, as small businesses take advantage of the vulnerability of illegal residents.
The total number of legalized immigrants entering The United States since 1990 has averaged 962,000 per year. Several credible studies indicate that the number of illegal entries has recently crept up to 3 million per year, triple the authorized figure.”
Are you saying there’s no way to recall an office holder once in office?
As you know, the founding fathers felt the senators from each state would be more responsible to the people if approved by the state governments. For the same reason the state legislatures can select the electoral voters. Of course I doubt if there are any state legislators with the gonads to ever stand up and do it when they know that voter fraud is rampant. So, in that case, I guess you’re right. Nothing would be any different. We’d still have the best politicians money can buy.
I thought all legislation was supposed to originate in the house. Am I wrong on this? I’m getting old and my memory ain’t what it used to be and I’m too lazy to go look it up.
Not a federal office holder. It's not in the Constitution.
An executive branch or judicial branch office holder can be impeached and removed from office by Congress. A congressman or senator can be expelled by vote of his chamber. But there's no way for the voters to remove an officeholder prior to the next election.
I thought all legislation was supposed to originate in the house.
All financial measures must originate in the House. This was intended by the Founders to give the house most directly responsible to the people the "power of the purse," as the Commons did in England.
Hasn't really worked that way. It's pretty much a formality at this point. Most financial measures are in reality initiated by the President.
In actual fact, the Senate was intentionally designed to be less responsible (and responsive) to the people. That's why they were given a six-year term and indirect election. They were supposed to provide the long term POV and resistance to popular enthusiasms of the old Roman Senate and the British House of Lords.
The Founders were scared to death of straight democracy. In the entire federal government, as originally set up, only the Representatives were directly elected by the People. Hence their name.
Yup.
Flat out bribery.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2411900/posts
Thinking about it though, the only reason this is getting attention (I mean the bribery part) is because it is such a massive bill that would affect everyone. These types of dealings, the threats, the bribes, the coercion, the you-scratch-my-back type stuff is SOP down there.
They have long ago forgot the ideals that founded this nation/confederacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.